Bleak House
“Literature is not about something: it is about the thing itself, the quiddity. Without the masterpiece, literature does not exist” – Vladimir Nabokov
Bleak House
8/10
I will open with a thought I had about Mr. Tulkinghorn. When conducting business with people, the form of interactions can be transactional or relational. An example of the first, would be a purchase in a shop you never return to. An example of the latter would be a mechanic that you call up to ask for advice whenever you need it. Mr. Tulkinghorn, in my view, only engaged in transactional relationships with people, other than the Dedlock’s. His awful treatment and disregarding of both Jo and, subsequently, Madame Hortense, ultimately came back to bite him.
Next, I will juxtapose a theme in the novel with an article that I recently read. When those associated with Mr. Jarndyce attempt to point out to Richard that he is wrong in how he perceives Mr. Jarndyce and his guidance about the famous case, Richard’s opinions become more entrenched. I immediately thought of a piece I had read about Trump voters. If you attack somebody’s world view, even if they are wrong or have a suspicion that they might be wrong, they will double down on that view. No wonder relations were so strained between them, more so in the novel than the series. There is no easy way to deal with two opposing world views like that. Thankfully, Mr. Jarndyce was able to be present at the end of Richard’s short life, to reconcile, and forgive.
Another of the most emotional parts of the story for me were Sir Leicester Dedlock’s feelings for his wife which were truly romantic and moving, particularly for a person of his position to have at the time in which the novel is set. Lady Dedlock is described as “a main fibre of the root of his dignity and pride” and “It is she whom he has loved, admired, honoured, and set up for the world to respect”. Sir Dedlock “sees her, almost to the exclusion of himself, and cannot bear to look upon her cast down from the high place she has graced so well”. Regardless of what she has done in the past, he pronounces her name “in a tone of mourning and compassion rather than reproach”.
Of course, her death is very powerful. When she runs away, one is hoping that Esther and Mr. Bucket can locate her in time. However, a gut punch is received instead. “I passed on to the gate and stooped down. I lifted the heavy head, put the long dank hair aside, and turned the face. And it was my mother, cold and dead”. Nabokov says she “dies of exhaustion and exposure, clutching the bars of the iron gate, after walking a hundred miles through a dreadful storm, practically without rest”. I didn’t realise it was so far, but this amplifies how emotional this moment is. Nabokov describes this death as “Melodramatic, but effectively staged”. I would just say, tragic.
Towards the end, there is a touching moment where Esther says she has “almost forgotten Caddy’s poor little girl. She is not such a mite now, but she is deaf and dumb. I believe there never was a better mother than Caddy, who learns, in her scanty intervals of leisure, innumerable deaf and dumb arts to soften the affliction of her child”.
It was interesting to note the number of strong and capable female characters in this novel. Madame Hortense, even if you don’t agree with her methods, is strong willed and determined. She was angry and upset enough to take out Mr. Tulkinghorn and almost succeeded in her attempt to frame Lady Dedlock. Mrs. Bagnet is great. Not only is she, very transparently, pulling the strings in that household, she is confident, clever, and has the initiative to arrange informing Mr. George’s mother about his incarceration. Mrs. Snagsby is assertive and won’t be anybody fool. Lady Dedlock proficiently investigates her former love in disguise and without help.
Mr. Bucket is actually a really good detective. In the earlier stages of the book, I thought that he was just a lackey for Mr. Tulkinghorn, but he really proves himself when he makes his deduction about the shady brickmaking people and the watch. As a result, he can modify the direction of his search for Lady Dedlock.
Esther Summerson is such a kind-hearted character. I genuinely feel the appeal that she has to other characters in the story. Even though, in my view, she is exploited as a companion, being in essence an unpaid housekeeper, and receives little else than basic kindness from others, she says, “My lot has been so blest that I can relate little of myself which is not a story of goodness and generosity in others”. Later, after Mr. Jarndyce shares the story of Mr. Boythorn’s former relationship and Esther reveals to him that Lady Dedlock is her mother, she reacts in a peculiar way. Indeed, her response to basic kindness and openness is that she wonders how she could “ever be busy enough, …good enough, how in [her] little way could [she] ever hope to be forgetful enough of [herself], devoted enough to him, and useful enough to others”.
Further support for how beloved she is to other characters comes from Mr. George, who says, “I can assure you that I would willingly be knocked on the head at any time if it would be at all agreeable to Miss Summerson, and consequently I esteem it a privilege to do that young lady any service however small”. Mr. Woodcourt says that his “praise is not a lover’s praise, but the truth. You do not know what all around you see in Esther Summerson, how many hearts she touches and awakens, what sacred admiration and what love she wins”. It’s not a wonder that she is proposed to thrice in course of the text.
When Mr. Jarndyce proposes to Esther in the novel, it comes out of nowhere. It was a shocking moment. This is presented in a more easily digestible manner in the series. Jarndyce is seen to wrestle with this notion and to consider both its merits and disadvantages. Critically, the series makes it clear that Jarndyce does not intend having a sexual relationship with Esther, while this implied in the novel, but left to the interpretation of the reader. It does appear though that both Mr. Jarndyce and Esther are both racists. In the course of the novel, Jarndyce uses the term ‘as rich as a jew’ and Esther just laughs instead rebuking him or sending a virtue signalling tweet, #Racist. Later, Jarndyce tells Allan Woodcourt to take a willing gift from him, “the best wife that a man ever had”. Even at the end of the story, Esther is being horse-traded. The disrespect that this young lady is shown is evident in the horrible nicknames she is given, “Dame Trot, Dame Durden, Little Woman”, all with the purpose of praising her slavish attendance to looking after others and the house.
Another shocking moment in the novel comes when Ada reveals, on a visit to Richard, that she is “not going home again” as she has been covertly married to him.
Indeed, this text is both shocking and exciting in places. The murder mystery elements are thrilling. All roads seem to be leading to Lady Dedlock, before it is revealed that Madame Hortense was responsible. Nabokov says, when Lady Dedlock is the prime suspect, “The reader may think: Aha! This is too pat. The author is deceiving me; the real murderer is someone else”. I agree. If someone is too obvious in a murder mystery, it is not them. He continues, that “no mystery writer would have anybody point at the real murderer by means of anonymous letters”. After Lady Dedlock disappears, the search for her is thrilling and compelling. During the pursuit, the reader is hoping that she will be found alive and that there will be a joyful reconciliation between her and Esther.
In a powerful moment, after Jo reappears on the streets, he is informed by Jenny of Esther’s goodness when told, “that young lady that was such a pretty dear caught his illness, lost her beautiful looks, and wouldn’t hardly be known for the same young lady now if it wasn’t for her angel temper, and her pretty shape, and her sweet voice. Do you know it? You ungrateful wretch, do you know that this is all along of you and her goodness to you?”. Being a visual medium, the series was able to illustrate the devastating impact of smallpox on poor Esther’s appearance and her slow recovery over time.
Among notes I made of examples of excellent writing are this of Mr. Tulkinghorn’s quarters. “In his lowering magazine of dust, the universal article into which his papers and himself, and all his clients, and all things on earth, animate and inanimate, are resolving”. There is something so simple and profound about this description. An observation of Richard reading says, he “was sitting with a book before him, from which his eyes and thoughts were far astray”. What a relatable moment!
If you recall, I shared this passage involving Esther and Lady Dedlock in the car on our trip to Dublin [Macbeth]. “I had a fancy, on more than one of these Sundays, that what this lady so curiously was to me, I was to her – I mean that I disturbed her thoughts as she influenced mine, though in some different way. But when I stole a glance at her and saw her so composed and distant and unapproachable, I felt this to be a foolish weakness”. To Esther’s mind, it appears that there is something between them, but Lady Dedlock is such a cool customer that there is no way to know her thoughts or obtain any confirmation of this.
While the purpose of this email is not to explicate the differences between book and series, perhaps I’ll save that for a ‘what’s the difference?’ in the future, one that was very notable to me was the casting of Mr. Krook. In the series, he is played by Johnny Vegas, a big fat disgusting drunkard. In the novel, he is described as “short, cadaverous, and withered; with his head sunk sideways between his shoulders, and the breath issuing in visible smoke from his mouth, as if he were on fire within”.
In both the book and series, there are many instances where people’s writing is so idiosyncratic. For the novel, one must use their imagination, but the series did an excellent job of illustrating this. Those ‘J’s’ written by Nemo/Captain Hawdon and Madame Hortense’s writing are so unique and unmistakably theirs.
Nabokov describes Mr. Bucket and “an expert in disguise” and “capable of penetrating the disguises of others”. He certainly wasn’t disguising himself well in the series when he pretended to be a doctor, wearing only a pair of spectacles, and was recognised immediately.
On the subject of Krook’s spontaneous combustion, Nabokov says that “We feel it all physically, and it does not, of course, matter a jot whether or not a man burning down that way from the saturated gin inside him is a scientific possibility. Dickens with his eloquent tongue in his bearded cheek… when introducing his book and also within the text, refers to what he lists as actual cases of spontaneous combustion…”. It is my understanding that the jury is still out on spontaneous human combustion, but I agree that it doesn’t matter how true it is. It’s an effective death that works in the context of the story and serves to propel it.
When Nabokov discusses Skimpole and his claims of being a child, he says “he is nothing of the sort; but this false childishness of his throws into splendid relief the virtues of authentic childhood in other parts of the book”. One must hand it to the BBC series for their great casting. The novel describes him as “Being of a more slender figure than Mr. Jarndyce, and having a richer complexion, with browner hair, he looked younger. Indeed, he had more the appearance, in all respects, of a damaged young man, than a well-preserved elderly one”. His cheeky face and false oblivious manner of carrying on in the series is so well executed.
Nabokov goes on to describe him as a “vile parody of a child” and says that there is something “hard and evil” behind how he acts. As an example, he cites his reaction to learning that the sheriff’s officer, Neckett, who came to collect debts from him, has died and left behind motherless children. Conversely, Charley, one of these children, becomes a “pathetic imitator of an adult woman”, doing washing and starkly contrasting with Skimpole.
In examining the structure of the novel, written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator and Esther, Nabokov believes it was a mistake to use both approaches. He supports this by saying Esther’s sections begin with writing in a schoolgirl style, but this falls apart quite quickly and soon is of the standard of Dickens and not some girlish character. He also criticises her ‘memory’, as Esther’s sections, 33 chapters, are framed as a book she is writing seven years after the events described. I can understand these points and agree with them to some extent. My view though is that if the book were all in third person, that gut-wrenching discovery by Esther of her changed looks after her illness would be lost. This is an important part of the story that is both character building and devastating. No matter how Esther looks, she is beautiful on the inside.
The narrative device of parts of the story being written by Esther, according to Nabokov, allows Dickens to have “mild fun at the expense of the reader”, as Esther knows from the start that Mr. Jarndyce will revoke his proposal and allow her to marry Woodcourt. Nabokov also mentions that the book opens the possibility Ada will marry Jarndyce. I noticed this too and wouldn’t put it past Jarndyce.
In my view, the character that most resembles Aisling is Skimpole’s ‘comedy daughter’, Kitty. However, no comedy came from her. Instead, comedic moments in the text came about during Mrs. Bagnet’s birthday, where her being treated by her husband and children was so stressful to her that she, most likely, would have preferred to prepare her birthday dinner herself.
Other comedic instances are when “A servant came to the door to announce Mr. Bucket, which was quite unnecessary, for Mr. Bucket was already looking in over the servant’s shoulders”. Why does Mr. Jarndyce love the name Bleak House so much? It wasn’t enough that there should be one house with that miserable name on the go, he had to go and ruin Esther’s new place with that title too. Why on earth did Mr. Guppy bring his mother when renewing his proposal to Esther? Notwithstanding, her response to the rejection of that proposal was both comical and excessive. The irony of the contested estate in the ongoing Jarndyce and Jarndyce suit being absorbed in costs, too, borders on comedy.
When searching for Lady Dedlock, Mr. Bucket decides to go to Jenny, the brickmaker’s wife’s house, based on information from none other than the king of pop himself! When the brickmaking husband asks him who referred him, he replies, “A person by the name of Michael Jackson”. If you think that’s the only popstar in the novel, you’re mistaken. Towards the end, Esther talks about her preparation for a visit from “my darling and my guardian and little Richard [Italics added for emphasis]”.
The three groups that get the most severe judgement in the text, are lawyers, brickmakers, and philanthropists. Lawyers are too obvious to even comment on. Poor brickmakers get such a bad rap in this book. They are portrayed as a gang of useless drunks and wife beaters, and nothing positive is written about them. The philanthropists, according to Nabokov, simply “spread misery around them while deceiving themselves that they they are doing good though actually indulging their selfish instincts“. They are characterised as a useless parallel to the chancery that abandons others i.e. children, and makes them miserable.
Finally, it was a burn heavy book.
Mr. Boythorn describes Leicester Dedlock as “the most self-satisfied, and the shallowest, and the most coxcombical and utterly brainless ass”.
Mrs. Jellyby’s hair is described as “looking like the mane of a dustman’s horse”.
Even kind-hearted Esther can’t resist throwing some shade at her poor maid, Charley, when she comments that her “grammatical education was advancing, but not very rapidly”. Later she says, “to which Charley, whose grammar, I confess to my shame, never did any credit to my educational powers”.
All the Best
T
